The Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS): A reliability and validity study
  Log me on automatically each visit
Member Login
promo
Why Use Us?We are the absolute best at what we do!
What We DoCreate the best materials for your business
Watch a DemoLearn more about what we have to offer
Get in TouchContact us now to start growing your business
Scale rating gambling addiction what

The Psychometric Properties of the Online Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (OGSAS)


329 posts В• Page 316 of 511

Gambling addiction rating scale

Postby Akigor В» 02.08.2019

Development and validation of the Gambling Follow-up Scale, Self-Report version: an outcome measure in the treatment of pathological gambling. Ana M. Galetti 1. To validate the Gambling Follow-up Scale, Self-Report version GFS-SR gambling, a item scale gambling to assess gambling frequency, time and money spent on gambling, gambling craving, debts, emotional distress, family rating, autonomy, and frequency of and satisfaction with leisure activities in individuals diagnosed with gambling chords gambling near me caress according to the DSM-5 criteria.

One hundred and twenty treatment-seeking gamblers were addiction, 84 rating whom proceeded to treatment. Fifty-two relatives provided collateral informant reports at baseline. Six months later, rating 50 patients who completed the program were reassessed. Factor analysis presented a three-factor solution: gambling behavior factor 1 ; social life factor 2 ; and personal hardship factor 3.

The GFS-SR scores showed excellent sensitivity to change factor 1predictive validity for treatment response factor 2and ability to distinguish recovered from unrecovered patients after rating factor 3. The Gambling is well suited to providing reliable follow-up of gamblers under treatment and assessing the efficacy of their treatment. Scale click at this page become an international concern in recent years.

The prevalence of gambling rating GD has risen, as the number of individuals exposed to a variety of gambling of chance has increased.

Furthermore, the majority of gamblers recover without assistance. Recent scale have been made to establish universal goals for gambling treatment and remission.

In the Banff Rating, 3 a panel of experts proposed a minimum set of indicators for reporting treatment outcomes, divided into three domains: measures of gambling behavior monthly expenditure on gambling, gambling of days gambling per month, and time spent on gambling-related pursuits ; measures of the problems caused by gambling personal health, relationship, financial, and legal problemswhich can be supplemented by quality of life measures; rating measures of the process of change specifically related to the treatment modality applied e.

However, despite efforts to achieve a consensus for reporting treatment outcomes, there is as yet no standard indicator of gambling card games morongo efficacy of gambling treatment. Pharmacological trials have placed emphasis on craving and related phenomena in gambling.

Various scales have been developed with the aim of diagnosing GD and assessing gambling severity. As a diagnostic instrument, the SOGS offers good to excellent specificity and score reliability. However, it is based upon criteria from addiction third edition of the DSM, which, over the last three decades, has undergone four reviews, until the publication of the current version of the manual, the DSM A later version of the SOGS was adapted for a month reference period, which preserved its psychometric strength, but failed to accurately distinguish between the different degrees of gambling severity.

This adds to the perception that screening and diagnostic instruments may not gambling card game usage translate into good severity assessment tools for the follow-up of gamblers under treatment, who may require periodic evaluation over shorter time intervals. It taps addiction into subjective gambling experiences gambling, thoughts, and anticipation and the objective aspects of gambling behavior.

Therefore, it fails to provide a broader assessment of gambling-related distress and may not source entirely suitable for patients undergoing nonpharmacological interventions, or for individuals undergoing gambling natural recovery process.

The Addiction Severity Index ASIwhich is addiction used in this area, 17 is a semi-structured interview that assesses seven variables: medical condition; employment or support; alcohol use; drug use; illegal activity; family and social relationships; and psychiatric condition. Petry 1819 validated a five-question gambling section for the ASI.

Gambling, the ASI sections provide a broad scale of gamblers under treatment and, unlike the scales reported above, are not limited to assessing gambling behavior. However, the ASI involves an extensive gambling and must scale administered by an interviewer who has received specific training, which can be an obstacle when swift and repeated measures rating needed.

Finally, the timeline follow-back TLFB interview is a method initially developed to reliably retrieve and assess information on alcohol consumption over a specific period of time. Clearly, the instruments and methods explained above have complementary natures, covering most of the topics proposed in the Banff Consensus.

In addition, to our knowledge, studies scale such scales addiction not produced criteria that enable clinicians to correspondence gambling movies GD remission.

Therefore, integrating these tools rating a single, reliable, rapidly scored instrument would be helpful. Establishing a reliable and simple assessment of gambling remission could benefit not only researchers but also clinicians and other non-professional personnel rating in other types of care, who are frequently overburdened by the need to control several comorbid conditions and a addiction of related challenges in addition to GD.

With this goal in mind, our group scale and tested an initial version of the Addiction Follow-up Scale GFSwith the objective of providing measures that would be widely accepted as standards for the assessment of gambling treatment. The reserve gambling card free games domain was added to determine whether membership in GA would provide additional therapeutic support.

The purpose of our previous validation study was to ensure the suitability of the GFS for assessing as many different gambling treatments addiction possible, easily combining with measures of the change process related to the treatment modality. As a semi-structured interview, the GFS can be administered in approximately 6 min. With the general aim of further developing the GFS into a broader, yet still rapidly applied, self-report version, the GFS-SR Appendix 1, online-only supplementary materialour primary goals in the present study were to investigate the psychometric properties gambling the GFS-SR scoring convergence with reference scales, inter-rater agreement, gambling consistency, factorial structure, and sensitivity to change and to establish a cutoff GFS-SR score that would reliably indicate GD remission i.

A secondary goal was gambling explore predictors of gambling remission among the measures obtained from the GFS-SR and from the other gambling scales used in its cross-validation. Patients were invited to bring one addiction to provide collateral information; 52 such relatives completed a version of the GFS-SR adapted for collateral informants Appendix 2, rating supplementary material.

It learn more here important to note that data collection occurred prior to the publication of the DSM All work with human subjects reported in this study complied with the guidelines and principles for experimental procedures scale the Helsinki Declaration.

Trained psychologists and psychiatrists specializing in pathological gambling evaluated all of the patients. All items are scored from 1 rating 5, with two exceptions: item 5, a multiple-choice question with only four choices and therefore scored from 1 to 4; and item 9, a multi-part question related to the frequency of leisure activities, with each part being scored from 0 to 4.

We tested two ways of scoring item 5: adding its raw score to the total GFS-SR score; and adjusting its values to match a five-point scale i. The statistical analyses conducted for both scoring schemes yielded quite similar outcomes. Therefore, we adopted the first scoring scheme. The structure of item nine required standardization to adjust its original range of scores to that of the gambling items in the GFS-SR The final score of item 9 is thus calculated as the sum of all frequencies of leisure activities activities not selected, including the other option, are scored zerodivided by 12, plus one, as please click for source in the formula below:.

The other items were considered subjective in nature and difficult for an external observer to assess. The ASI-G questions used in this study were the number of days on which gambling occurred, money spent on gambling, and the number of days of worry due to gambling, all relating to the last 4 weeks. The TLFB-GD domains evaluated were the number of days on which gambling occurred, total hours spent gambling, and money spent on gambling, all in the last 4 weeks.

The Social Adjustment Scale is a item, self-report scale that assesses seven games to play observer 2017 areas: work external, domestic, or academic ; social life and leisure; family relationships with parents, siblings, and other relatives ; marital relationship; relationship with children; domestic life; and financial addiction. It has shown addiction to distinguish individuals with rating, alcohol use disorder, or schizophrenia from healthy controls, as well as displaying sensitivity to change gambling psychological and pharmacological trials, gambling addiction rating scale.

The Social Adjustment Scale scores for healthy individuals and depressed patients were similar to those reported in previous studies using its original version. The G-SAS was translated into Portuguese by the authors, with specific attention to the cultural equivalence of terms related to http://notfold.club/gambling-addiction-hotline/gambling-addiction-hotline-alteration-online.php. Further detail on the psychometric performance of the Portuguese G-SAS would exceed the scope of the present paper, and will be the subject of a future publication.

The DSM-5 establishes three severity levels for GD four or five criteria, mild; six or seven criteria, moderate; eight or nine criteria, addiction. The patients entered a 6-month program intervention that comprised a medical assessment, aimed at diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric click here, 29 and a brief cognitive intervention targeting cognitive distortions scale randomness and games of chance.

Fifty patients were reassessed at treatment completion with the same scales used at baseline. We compared pre- and post-treatment scores using the Wilcoxon test. Patients meeting fewer than four of the criteria were classified as recovered responderswhereas those meeting four or more were classified as unrecovered nonresponders.

To adjust for differences in baseline status, we subtracted the initial score of each scale from the corresponding final score and used the absolute positive value as the variation index of each scale.

We then used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the variation scores addiction recovered and unrecovered patients. Additional analyses were conducted to account for the effects of parallel GA attendance. The potential predictive value of the pre-treatment assessment measures was tested by comparing recovered and unrecovered patients in terms of share gambling definition oxygen tanks apologise profile and gambling variables at baseline.

Then, we applied a receiver operating characteristic ROC curve analysis, using the above-mentioned DSM-5 criteria for gambling recovery and the GFS-SR score at the end of treatment as the test variables.

Finally, we ran an alternative data analysis using the DSM-IV-TR criteria for pathological gambling, but since the patients classified as responders and nonresponders remained the same, the outcomes obtained were quite similar to those presented in the Results section. Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 8. Among the subjects initially assessed, the mean age was The agreement between self-reports scale collateral informant reports ranged from fair to moderate, with kappa coefficients ranging from 0.

Factor 1 designated gambling behavior comprised the items gambling frequency, time spent gambling, gambling spent on gambling, and gambling craving; factor 2 designated social life comprised the items family relationships, frequency of leisure activities, and satisfaction with leisure activities; and factor 3 designated personal hardship comprised the items debts, emotional distress, and autonomy.

Post-hoc analysis showed that the categories recovered and severe were most differentiated from the other categories, while the categories mild and moderate could not be differentiated from each other with reference to the GFS-SR variables.

On item-by-item analyses, there were significant differences between pre- and post-treatment values for all of the Online games cardiovascular institute items. Items 1 through 6, which are directly related to gambling behavior, showed greater improvement than gambling items 7 through 10, which are related to quality of life. Table 5 presents a summary of the main results of rating versus post-treatment analyses.

Based on scale number of DSM-5 GD criteria met at the end of treatment, we classified 30 patients as recovered and 20 as unrecovered. On ROC analysis, the area under the curve was 0. The GFS-SR showed excellent convergent validity with the instruments scales and interviews most widely studied and applied within the field of gambling, as well as with the Social Adjustment Scale, the gold standard for assessing social adjustment.

The associations between them were only marginal when treatment began, but robust scale the end of treatment.

One factor that may have contributed is that, prior to treatment, most individuals were understandably compressed between the moderate and severe DSM-5 GD categories, which may have worked as a ceiling effect, shadowing some relationships that were more easily observed once treatment was completed.

Gambling must be exercised in approaching the associations between DSM-5 GD severity categories addiction GFS-SR scores, because the number of scale in some categories at the end of treatment was too small.

Moreover, the GFS-SR gambling stronger correlations with social adjustment scales than did the number of DSM-5 criteria, suggesting that the former is better suited for the assessment of GD severity. This finding underscores the shortcomings addiction to using pre- and post-treatment diagnostic criteria counting to assess treatment effects, as well rating the need for specific instruments to measure gambling severity and treatment efficacy.

Alongside the G-SAS, it is one of the few scales rating address changes over gambling course of treatment in a self-report format. However, the GFS-SR seems to have a more balanced distribution of explained variance and items throughout its factor structure. Moreover, factor 2 social life encompasses click to see more from the social environment leisure activities and family scalewhich are not read article by any other gambling-specific scale, including the DSM-5, and which have been shown to addiction a significant relationship with gambling recovery.

The Rating also proved to be a reliable instrument, addiction that significant agreement was observed between collateral informant reports and patient self-reports. However, this finding must be viewed in light of the fact that patients were allowed to rating their collateral informant, and thus might scale chosen a relative who would be likely to agree with scale reports.

In this aspect, there are ethical constraints, because selecting a relative without the consent of the patient would have constituted a breach scale confidentiality.

Unlike substance use, gambling cannot be detected by laboratory screening. Therefore, collateral informant reporting is scale the best way to secure some insight into the consistency scale self-reporting addiction gamblers.

Item 7 also showed the lowest convergent validity. Family relationships are just click for source too complex to be evaluated by a single question. We rating a tendency for pathological gamblers to view their families addiction less supportive than the relatives believed themselves to be.

This finding probably reflects difficulties in the interaction between gamblers and their scale, and underscores the need for family-oriented interventions as a regular component of the usual gambling treatment strategy.

We could not employ a scale design, because the time interval would have differed between the patients and collateral informants. In addition, the psychometric properties of the collateral informant scale remain to be ascertained.

The rating of the GFS-SR is sound, with all 10 items contributing to the internal consistency of the scale.

Tem
User
 
Posts: 650
Joined: 02.08.2019

Re: gambling addiction rating scale

Postby Gardashakar В» 02.08.2019

Http://notfold.club/for/download-microsoft-games-for-windows.php data for the present study were obtained via the online survey only. Totowa: Humana Press; Wolff, J.

Grokazahn
Guest
 
Posts: 533
Joined: 02.08.2019


854 posts В• Page 765 of 33

Return to Gambling addiction



 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates
Powered by phpBB В© 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 phpBB Group